---

Djagardo Simanjuntak and Aisyah Sharifa as Principal Petitioners at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law), Wednesday (19/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy (Blasphemy Law) on Wednesday (19/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners, students by the name of Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak (Petitioner I) and Aisyah Sharifa (Petitioner II), claimed that Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law potentially harms their constitutional rights. 

Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law reads, “In the Indonesian Criminal Code, a new article was written, which reads, ‘Article 156a By a maximum imprisonment of five years shall be punished any person who deliberately in public gives expression to feelings or commits an act: a. which principally have the character of being at enmity with, abusing, or staining a religion adhered to in Indonesia; b. with the intention to prevent a person to adhere to any religion based on the belief of the almighty God.’”

Aisyah, who was present at the hearing, explained that she often speaks at various seminars, discussion forums, and conferences. In these activities, the Petitioners considered that they should keep to their own faith. 

"However, the implementation of the a quo article, for example, if in a debate competition on law, Petitioner II said the word Nabi Isa a.s. not Jesus Christ before a Christian audience, the audience might accuse Petitioner II of having defamed their religion," Aisyah explained before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo accompanied by Constitutional Justices Manahan M.P. Sitompul and Saldi Isra. 

The a quo article, Zico added, has made it possible for anyone who adheres to a particular religion to say that another religion is wrong, whereas every religion is basically different and believed to be right by its followers. "Thus, the a quo article can be used by people who do not understand their own religion to accuse others of blasphemy," Zico said on case No. 76/PUU-XVI/2018. 

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Panel of Constitutional Justices declare Article 4 of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on the Prevention of Abuse of Religion and/or Blasphemy in contradiction with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In addition, they requested that the article declared not to have binding legal force with all legal consequences.

Not Only the Potential 

In response to the petition, Justice Saldi emphasized several revisions that should be made by the Petitioners. Firstly, the need for the elaboration of not only the potential constitutional impairment resulting from the implementation of the a quo article, but also that within reasonable reasoning the impairment would occur. This can then establish the legal standing of the Petitioners. Secondly, on legal standing, Justice Saldi questioned why in filing the case the Petitioner did not claim impairment of organization or profession as a speaker that could be threatened by the implementation of the a quo article. Thirdly, in the principal point of the petition, the Petitioners had simplified the petition too much, in that six pages already contained the court\\'s authority and legal standing. For this reason, he asked the Petitioners to expand the arguments. 

"For example, [in the case of] Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution [mentioned by the Petitioners], there must be an in-depth explanation of why Article 4 of the Blasphemy Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. [Please add] a lot of constitutional arguments so that there the contradiction is visible," he suggested. 

Justice Saldi also requested that the Petitioners review similar cases that have been reviewed or even decided by the Court. He said that the weakness of the petition is that it did not refer to previous Constitutional Court petitions at all. 

Tolerance 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan emphasized on the material that was petitioned for review by the Petitioners. He stated that the Petitioners\\' concern on the accusation of blasphemy needed to be studied; in this case, tolerance needs to be developed. He explained that both the Petitioners and the people who gave religious lectures or sermons could present the material in a special place attended by people who understood the context of the speaker\\'s presentation. 

"However, if those things feared by the Petitioners happen, the legal standing needs to be further elaborated. So, I think there is the need to find tolerance in everyday life," he said. 

Before concluding the trial, Justice Suhartoyo reminded the Petitioners to submit revision to the petition at the latest on Wednesday, 2 October 2018 at 10.00 a.m. to the Registrar\\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---